Understand Men. Find Love.

Menu

Is Monogamy Harder for Men or Women?

The confirmation bias is a tendency to prefer information that confirms whatever you already believe. It’s dangerous, because under the influence of the confirmation bias, you cherry-pick only facts that reinforce your arguments. The first thing I think of when I hear “confirmation bias” is Fox News, but that is, admittedly, my own bias. And I work very hard not to fall into the trap of having a fixed mindset on things.

It’s with this framing that I want to present to you this article, which contradicts a previously held belief of mine: that belief that men are more likely to prefer a variety of sexual partners. So, why would I hold this belief if it may not be true?

Are there some women who want to sleep with hundreds of men? Sure. But there are more men who want to sleep around.

Well, it’s hard to say. Thinking about it critically, it’s somewhere between experience, society and faith. I was a promiscuous guy. I know men who are a lot worse than I was. There’s an entire industry around pick-up artists. Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession. Porn for men dominates the internet. I’m a dating coach for women who complain that men are commitmentphobes and cheaters. So yeah, there is a LOT of evidence that men have sex on the brain, at least more than women do.

Then some studies came out that women get bored with monogamy faster than men, and suddenly everything I wrote above has been called into question.

Amanda Marcotte, writing for Slate XX Factor, sees this as a sea change. But I don’t. And while it may be my own confirmation bias speaking, here’s the reason:

Marcotte harps on studies that show that women respond to novelty in porn (duh) and fantasize about sex with strangers (double duh). All that proves is that, yes, women can get bored with routine sex as well. I don’t think there’s any right-minded person who ever thought otherwise. What this doesn’t prove, however, is that women are MORE driven by sex than men. While it’s useful to recognize that women and men are similar in many ways, I think it’s shortsighted to suggest that we are the SAME, as if gender was simply a societal construct and not somewhat tied to biology.

Are there some women who want to sleep with hundreds of men? Sure. But there are more men who want to sleep around.

Are there some women who can separate love and sex and have no emotional attachment after physical contact? You bet. But there are more men who do.

Are there more women who give up on sex within a marriage? Apparently. But that might just mean that she’s married to a jerk for 20 years and can’t summon any more amorous feelings for him. It doesn’t mean that she’s more likely to cheat or that she values sexual variety as much as he does.

So, to me (and my confirmation bias), this study is much ado about nothing, in that it’s verifying something we already know. The reason that Marcotte is jumping on it is because it confirms what she wants to believe (women and men have the same take on sex), not because it represents a true shift.

Because for every study that says (rightfully!) that women get bored with monogamy, there’s another one that confirms what most of us already know: men are more driven by sexual variety than women. One highly publicized study doesn’t negate that.

Comments:

31

Karl S

@ Selena – “What I find interesting in commenters who promote the hard-wired/ biologically programmed/lizard brain theories of human sexuality is that so few take that line of thought further and make the obvious connections. If we examine the “men are biologically programmed to spread their seed” theory are we also to believe that males are willing to spread their seed in females who are diseased, mentally or otherwise incapcitated, dying? From a biological impertative perspective this wouldn’t make much sense.”
It makes perfect sense though. A man can potentially inseminate a new women every few hours. Investing in a single female, even the “best” female does not take advantage of that ability. They are more likely to succeed in a biological sense if they impregnate a variety of women, even if some of them are diseased or what have you, in order to cover all bases.
A woman can only have one child every nine months, and the prolonged state of infancy experienced in humans would encourage a woman to keep the father around as a helper and protector instead of “trading up”. A new man might simply want to kill off the child of the previous father, which is what happens in the animal kingdom.
You are right in that men still compete over the healthiest, most attractive women. But I think the difference is, even once they have secured a relationship, a man still experiences the urge to sleep around.

I feel I should add an addendum though, because why own argument does not yet explain men who are monogamous.
As far as I have learned, Natural Selection is not really about survival of the fittest, so much as it is about survival of the fit enough. Mutually exclusive traits can be passed on through the genetic pool if both are still successful to a greater or lesser degree. Men who stick around to rear their young help to guarantee their survival, and thus monogamy is a useful trait to have. However, men can also be fooled into raising children who do not share their genetic code. It is much harder to reverse that trick on a woman, because whatever you give birth to is definitely yours.

Michelle you’ve gotta be kidding me. OkCupid has the most ugliest women I have ever seen in my life. Other dating sites have far more attractive women. I would say that 1 out of every 10 women viewed is attractive lookinbg on OKC while the other 9 are not just unattractive, they are repulsive!!!!! And the women on OKC rank the men as ugly? Hahahahaa what a joke. I speak from personal experience, but here is a link where others found the same thing.http://www.loveshack.org/forums/romantic/dating/223463-so-i-decided-try-okcupid

@ Karl S.
I tend to think at base the biological imperative is simply concerned with keeping the species going. Sperm meets egg. Doesn’t care who’s sperm or who’s egg or the genetic quality of said eggs and sperm. Just keep producing the species period.

Yet, if males are programmed to spread their seed as much and to as many as possible…why do many males elect not to mate with females who are mentally deficient? Addicts? Have degenerative diseases that will prove fatal? Are they truly going against their biology? Allowing sociological, cultural, psychological factors over-ride biology? Or is there perhaps other biological factors at play that we don’t yet understand?

“A woman can only have one child every nine months, and the prolonged state of infancy experienced in humans would encourage a woman to keep the father around as a helper and protector instead of “trading up”. A new man might simply want to kill off the child of the previous father, which is what happens in the animal kingdom.”

Not only in the animal kingdom. I see this also in the news from time to time: “Boyfriend kills mother’s child”. If women are biologically programmed to be monogamous to the father of their children, why do so many end up with partners who are NOT the father of their children? Almost all of whom are obviously NOT child murderers. And what about young widows? If they lose the partner they were presumably were monogamous to, are they permanently “off the shelf” biologically speaking if they have children? Aren’t they still of interest to males who have a need to spread their side far and wide? The biological imperitive doesn’t seem to have a *stop* mechanism in the sense that after 2, 6, 10 offspring it automatically turns off.

If all males are programmed to spread their seed as far and wide as possible, but females are programmed to be monogamous to one male…and there are roughly the same number of males and females…well where is all this seed going? I’m not a biologist, but it appears to me these two positions: females are programmed to be monogamous, males are programmed to be non-monogamous are biologically opposed. From a survival of the species perspective, non-monogamy in both genders would better accomplish the goal of creating as many pregnancies as possible throughout the human reproductive cycle.

Are we over-riding our biology with our social contructs? Or is biology much more complex beyond the ideas we pick and choose from because they fit the way we want to see our world? That’s what interests me.

This debate to me is somewhat interesting but we are forgetting that men do not live in a vacuum and they tended to live in tribes (groups). A man’s survival is very dependent on his social ties. All these theories are bunk in my eyes because they tend to ignore the very obvious fact that humans are social creatures. So while technically a man can spread his seed, that doesn’t mean he should and he does have to be able to ‘play nice’ with other people if he is to survive.

The other point is that just because something has potential i.e. a man has potential to make hundreds and thousands of children, doesn’t mean that potential was actually designed to be fulfilled. How many animals lay eggs and only one of them develops? How many human females have eggs in their system and actually have children? We need to realize that nature is very abundant but she is abundant because it’s better to be abundant then deficit. Can you imagine if men didn’t have the capacity to make thousands of children? Can you imagine how pathetic nature would be if she limited man to producing only 4 children? It’s in Mother Nature’s best nature to endow animals (and we humans are animals) with potential so that it ensures their survival. This potential however will never need to be fulfilled.

I agree with both your points. I only talk in terms of urges and predispositions that are often overcome by use of empathy, reason and consideration of risk – the potential to lose more than you gain, by following those urges.
But the fact remains, as Evan said, that men in general want to sleep around more than women. Men, in general, can separate sex from emotional attachment.
I’m sure there was another article where Evan explained that a good man, a monogamous married man will desire to sleep with the pretty women he meets who is not his wife, but does not act on those urges. This does not make him a bad person. Subsequently, there was quite a debate that revealed a big difference in the way women thought about that statement.
It makes sense to me, because even though I am in a committed monogamous relationship, I feel those urges too.

So many men say “A man *can* separate sex and emotion”, like it’s a good thing. But in most women’s eyes, separating sex and emotion is not a worthy goal — it’s just a gross, devolved, less-than-human thing to do. Of course, many women *can* do that too, but don’t want to.

Michelle #20 ( http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/yo )
Thanks for posting this, I take any OKC “study” with a grain of salt, I’ll explain later.
As for the 4 guys they showed that were considered signifiigantly less than attractive here’s my opinion. I think they should all be considered attractive enough to enough women to be able to find love, if that is what they want to find (or a booty call for that matter if that is what they want)
From left to right Guy #1 – Attractive, but not my type, Guy #2 – I think he’s hot, and out of my league. I am not sure on what planet he could be considered unattractive. Guy #3 – About average in my estimation, but I can see how other women would find him attractive Guy #4 – Has a similar look to a young version of one of my husbands. (So I’ll leave it to you to guess how I would rate his attractiveness) 🙂
I don’t know how a man earned a rating of “signifigantly less than average” COLLECTIVELY. Did the vote have to be unanimous ? What percentage of women had to rate a man as being unattractive to be considered unattractive ? Was it an average of all scores ? Averaging all the women’s scores together really doesn’t tell you anything. (not sure if that’s how they did it, I didn’t find it in that article). After all, if 50% think you’re hot, and 50% think your not, just look amoungst that 50% that thinks you’re hot. Also, if the “study” included a small number of women, results won’t yield much signifigant info. Also, since I’ve been participating in dating blogs, people freely admit to putting false info on their profile, to try and proove some sort of point. So, I wouldn’t put it past anyone to bullshit on a “study” on OKC.
Here’s why I am skeptical of OKC’s “studies” I was on OKC very briefly. I was on another blog and an ad came up to have your picture rated free of charge. When I went to have my match.com photo rated, it turned out to be a way to recruit people to OKCupid. The only way I could get my photo rated was to JOIN (which is free) and to rate 50 photos of men. So I decided to go along with it. Well the “rating” system consisted of being shown 2 pictures side by side of 2 different men (no other profile info available) and then I had to pick out of the 2, which one I would go out with. Well most of the pairs, my answer was niether. And I would say that 80% of the pictures randomly selected from available profiles were TERRIBLE quality. Some I couldn’t even see the face. So how the hell am I supposed to choose between 2 photos, when one is a far away picture of a guy on the ski slopes where you can’t see his face, and one is taken in front of a foggy bathroom mirror where the flash obliterates half his face ? Or a blurry far away photo of a guy in his ball cap & glasses side by side of a picture of somone’s pet ? I ended up going through 50 sets of mostly terrible pairs of pictures, and then I got the results of how my picture was rated a few days later. Well, I actually got pretty good ratings, but I went and looked at women’s photos, and saw a high percentage of poor quality photos, and pet photo’s etc. So really, I couldn’t get excited about a good rating when my clear close up smiling photo was being compared side by side to a blurry mirror shot or a pictures of some one’s pet. (Whoopy Frickin’ Do, 9 out 10 guys would rather date me than a gerbil !)
Anyway my first e-mail was from a pretty hot 40 year old (If that was really his picture) who wrote to ask me if I was “open to the idea of a younger MARRIED man” My time on OKC was very short lived, for that, and a few other reasons as well, but I won’t go into the other reasons, because this post is already too long 🙂

Rose, I know you think you’re making a scientific point, but if you read the article you posted, you’d see:

1. The fact that men and women want one sex partner just means that men also want to fall in love. It does not mean that they aren’t, by nature, more promiscuous. It means that they have more to overcome in choosing monogamy.
2. The fact that men and women have the same number of sex partners doesn’t mean that men don’t want more. It may mean there are many men who are incapable of getting more sexual partners. Most women know that if they hang out until last call at a bar that they can get laid. The same doesn’t apply to all men.
3. Men liking one-night stands is still more true – even though there’s a bullet that refutes it with hypothetical offers. Ask ten of your single male friends and ten of your single female friends if they’re up for a one-night stand now, and I’m guessing more men are open to one-nighters. Asking a woman if she’s sleep with Clooney for one night is a silly point, irrelevant to real life.
4. The fact that men think about sex more (which is somewhat irrelevant, but the article cites it) still holds true. Men think about sex nearly twice as much. And this, in an article designed to debunk such myths.

Rose, my dear – I know you don’t want it to be true that men are more promiscuous, but pretty much all real world evidence – from prostitution, to big sex scandals, to infidelity rates, to membership on sex sites, to anecdotal evidence – seems to suggest they are. It’s okay. Let it go.

“Men think about sex nearly twice as much. And this, in an article designed to debunk such myths.”
That study included thoughts-about-sex that arose after seeing visual stimuli.
Guess how many more sexualized women are in the media than men?
…About twice as many.http://newyorksociologist.org/11/Berberick2011.pdf

Karl S.
My observation also has been that it seems men generally are able to separate sex from emotion more easily than women. And by extension, express the desire to have more sexual partners than women generally claim to want for themselves.
What I question is the idea that this is determined by biology rather than intense social conditioning. If females are naturally monogamous, then why have so many cultures across human history put restrictions and reprisals on the expression of female sexuality? If females were naturally monogamous, why would there be any need for it?

@ Rose #40: Interesting article. Thank you for sharing the link. I especially enjoyed the last paragraph:Psychologists – including me – always have to be looking beyond their own biases. They need to avoid getting so attached to a particular theory or perspective that they go out of their way to protect the theory,” Conley said. “Data should be the guide, and you have to look at data in every way you can think of to see if the story you are telling is really the best one.”

Evan, how can men as a group be more promiscuous than women as a group? Who are all these promiscuous guys having sex with? Each other? If not, then numerically it all averages out between the genders.
Let’s say you’re on an island with 10 men and 10 women who have 1 sex partner each. That means 10 men have sex with 10 women. The genders are equal on the promiscuity scale. But if 1 man has sex with 10 women, 9 men do not have sex. In which case 1 man would be more promiscuous than the women, but 9 men would be less promiscuous. If all 10 men have sex with 1 woman, 9 women do not have sex. In which case 1 woman would be more promiscuous than all the men and 9 would be less promiscuous. But in any of these cases, the average promiscuity between the genders does not change.
So how can men as a group be more promiscuous than women as a group? This isn’t a logical statement at all unless the men are having sex with each other. Explain, please.

Glad to explain, Jeannie. This isn’t about a number of sexual conquests. This is about desire. Who is more likely to desire a one-night stand? Who is more likely to join a sex site? Who is more likely to cheat? Who is more likely to be dissatisfied with sleeping with one person forever? The answer: the gender that is more driven by testosterone. From the linked Wikipedia page:

Men producing more testosterone are also more likely to engage in extramarital sex.[35]

When testosterone-deprived rats were given medium levels of testosterone, their sexual behaviors (copulation, partner preference, etc.) resumed, but not when given low amounts of the same hormone. Therefore, these mammals may provide a model for studying clinical populations among humans suffering from sexual arousal deficits such as hypoactive sexual desire disorder.[44]

In one study, almost every mammalian species examined demonstrated a marked increase in a male’s testosterone level upon encountering a novel female.

When females have a higher baseline level of testosterone, they have higher increases in sexual arousal levels but smaller increases in testosterone, indicating a ceiling effect on testosterone levels in females

Evan, promiscuity does mean that the people are having sex, not just thinking about it or having sexual feelings. So men are not more promiscuous than women are. Men and women are equally promiscuous if what we are talking about is consensual heterosexual sex. If you want to say that men think about sex more or join sex sites more, those are different statements. The first is pretty hard to measure–what people think about, and who cares, really. The second is measurable, so I’ll take that on your word. Maybe that would be different if they had better sex sites for women. I mean, really, it’s hard to find a decent porn site, and by decent I mean that the woman seems to be present and not doing some fake thing she thinks turn men on, she is having a good time and has a real orgasm, and the people having sex might actually kiss or touch each other. And coming on someone’s face or boobs is just not about her having a good time at all, and I would not believe any woman who said that she gets off by having a guy come on her face or her boobs. That kind of thing is quite distracting from the woman’s pleasure, actually, and it takes a little bit more on the guy’s part to please a woman. So why would any woman want to watch that boring stuff? If that’s what having testosterone leads to–random ejaculation onto a listless female body–well, nothing to be so proud of there. I’d keep that thought to myself if I were a guy.

Jeannie #46,
I can;’t tell ya how many women I know actually like watching gangbang or rough style porn. Maybe not the majority, but still a good deal. Even average typical everyday women. Some like it even more than I do!! They might not watch it all the time, but sometimes they like watching it. I have known personally several women who actually get off on giving a guy oral sex and loved doing it so much they pretty much demanded it. I’m not entirely huge on receiving it (I’m very sensitive and find it painful sometimes) and that was actually a big let down for them! Wow, bet that surprised ya, huh Jeannie??!!!!!!! Again, I’m quite shocked at the discrepancy there appears to be between what women on this blog proclaim and my actual real life experiences of talking and interacting with women. Again, perhaps it’s the age group on here?? I talk to 25-35 year olds. Most on here seem to be 50 plus.

Wow Karl, I bet every one of those women that wanted to give you a BJ really, really meant it. Unfortunately most women feel that they need to act this way in order to gain a man’s trust and to hook a guy. They are brought up feeling lesser important than a man and need to be submissive, do what a guy wants. I’ve been there so what about your study now.

Your comment – Oh, and surprised Jeannie? Karl……really these are your real life experiences. Anyone that ‘has to give a guy a bj or it’s a big let down for them….. those folks have some serious issues.

I think another way to answer this question is to switch up the question to: Is polyamory harder for women than men?

In another post a while back, I said that once I was out of my then current relationship, I would try to start my own male harem. To some extent I’ve been trying to do this but it’s very very difficult to do–as a woman.

I didn’t count on a couple of things:

1) Logistics – Even though I would LIKE to try to see/date a different guy every day of the week or even try to put men on a schedule, e.g., Guy A Monday, Guy B Tuesday, Guy C Wednesday, etc. — it’s simply not possible because initiating contact with men who are not my bf for a date goes against my basic instincts. I suppose if I were simply initiating booty calls, it would go quite well, but that would definitely make me feel slutty and give off the impression of desperation. So no-go on initiating booty calls on a schedule. Nor even calling for dates on a schedule. Both leave bad impressions.

2) Weirdness – by a twist of fate, I had sex with two different men four days apart. I’ve NEVER done this before. EVER. Or since. And while I didn’t feel slutty, per se, I felt naughty, in a good way. But also weird in a not so good way. To some extent I felt like I was being disloyal to both men even though I owed neither any loyalty. I’m sure if I were a man, I’d be high-fiving myself for a week and bragging to my friends. I didn’t do either, but I did mona-lisa smile quite often for a while for no reason.

I think due to the combination of social programming as well as innate biological hunter/prey programming, it’s just really really difficult for women to build male harems, e.g., guy monday/guy tuesday, etc., whereas I know for a fact that my reformed player ex-bf definitely had that kind of arrangement with his women.

And since women, in general, can have sex any time they want; the supply and demand nature of the universe dictates that women don’t need to think about sex as often as men since it’s there for the asking. Not so for men. Therefore, men think about sex more often because there is no guarantee they can get it when they want it.

Polyamory (if harem = polyamory) for women is just not easy — on a logistics level and on some biological level (hunter/prey programming) with a big dose of social programming (feeling of disloyalty) — at least for me. I actually WANT to be promiscuous, but DISCREETLY so (because my reputation matters to me), and I can’t do it. Culturally, logistically, biological-programming-ly…all conspire to prevent me from being as promiscuous as men.

So is monogamy harder for men than women? I’d say yes. Simply because the converse of that – polyamory for women – is not easy to pull off without a woman’s reputation or self-esteem taking a hit. You add oxytocin effects to that, and there’s just a low-to-no ROI for women to indulge in it.

I also think the reverse of what KE said could also be true. Whereas she WANTS to be a free spirited sexual adventurer with many partners, but it’s just not working out for her, many women WANT to be in a monogamous relationship, but that’s not working out for them. It could be due to sleeping with someone HOPING or THINKING that it’s a relationship, and it’s not. It could be sleeping with someone who has declared themselves to be a boyfriend, and it just either legitimately didn’t work out or the guy lied or mislead about his intentions to get a booty call. After a sexual encounter that turns out disappointingly to be not a relationship, it’s try, try, again. I’ve been out of the loop so long I don’t know what constitutes a lack of monogamy, promiscuity, polyamory, or whatever you want to call it, but I think more women than men DESIRE monogamy, even if they end up with many partners before they attain monogamy. And I think more men desire to sow their wild oats before they settle down with just one woman, although they may not fullfill that desire either. It could be because they go looking for sex and find love early on in life, or it could be that they look for sex and have little success finding it, and then decide that looking for love may be a better way to go. Please, before anyone jumps on me for making sexist generalizations, notice I did not say ALL of any gender ALWAYS does anything. These are just my observations, your results may vary 🙂

Jeanie #44 – In your example you said:
“If all 10 men have sex with 1 woman, 9 women do not have sex. In which case 1 woman would be more promiscuous than all the men and 9 would be less promiscuous. But in any of these cases, the average promiscuity between the genders does not change.
So how can men as a group be more promiscuous than women as a group? This isn’t a logical statement at all unless the men are having sex with each other. Explain, please.”
_______________________________________________________________
Jeanie – There are times when “averages” are meaningless for statistical analysis. For example if you have a roomful of great-grandmas, and each great-grandma is there with one of her infant grandchildren, that might give you an average age of 25, which is a meaningless number as there isn’t a single person in the room that is 25.
In your example, I wouldn’t call men having sex with one woman promiscuous at all, that would be 10 monogamous men. Let’s say that all ten men are having sex with 4 of the women. That makes makes 10 men “promiscuous” and 4 women “promiscuous”. So you have more than twice as many promiscuous men as women. The fact that the 4 women are “more” promiscuous has no bearing on the 6 celibate women, what four members of their group are doing does not “average” into their behavior. And the fact those 4 women are “more promiscuous” than those 10 men, because they each have 10 partners, whereas the men only have four, has no bearing on the men as a group, because 100% of the men in the group are still “promiscuous”. I am putting the word “promiscuous” in quotes, because it is one of those words that different people define differently, and it’s also a loaded & judgemental word. Feel free to substitute a phrase such as “person with multiple simultaneous sex partners” if you wish.
Also, even as someone who came of age during the so called sexual revolution, I never thought I would see the day when women would be clamoring to proclaim female promiscuity for their gender, as if it is some sort of girl scout merit badge.
Not judging the free spirited women in the group, just a little surprised to make the observation.

Maybe I could have one, but it would be more work than I am willing to do, and take more out of my life than I am willing to take. From what I’ve read about PUAs, the activity often seems to take over their lives. I have so many other things I want to do with my life, other than working to bed a different woman every night.

Emerald: We’re talking about the veracity of Evan’s claim that men aremore promiscuous than are women. Promiscuous was his word, not mine. Given this statement, it certainly does matter if even a few women are more promiscuous than the men. If female behavior skews to either end of the spectrum and male behavior clusters in the middle it doesn’t change the average or the median for either gender. In the perfectly binary system that sex is (one erection/one vagina or vagina-equivalent), they would both be the same. So again, if the men are having sex with women, how can they be having more sex than are the women these men are having it with? No matter how you slice and dice the numbers, there is still no way that you can say that men as a group are having more sex/are more promiscuous than women as a group, unless these men are having sex with children, animals, or other men.
Karl T: I’m not going to go out with you, so stop fishing.

Evan, I know you think and believe you know what I am thinking and what i believe from the link I posted.. And I understand why you came to that educated guess, Your educated guess on my thoughts and beliefs on that link in this case in incorrect.

Jeannie #55,
Please, don’t flatter yourself. Plus your math is bad. What if there is an island with 100 men and 100 women on it and 20 of the women had sex with 80 of the men, and the remaining 80 women had sex with just one of 90 of the men. The remaing 10 men had sex with no one. In the end we have 80 women who had sex with one guy, 80 men who had sex with at least 20 women, 10 guys who had sex with 1 or 2 women, and 20 women who had sex with over 80-90 guys. So we have 80 guys who were very promiscuous, 20 women who were extremely promiscuous, 20 women who were not very promiscuous, 10 guys who were not very promiscuous, and 10 guys who wished to hell they could have been more promiscuous, but couldn’t get laid. Therefore, your law of medians and averages fizzles out here.
marymary#54,
LOL. I like your response!

Karl, that’s nonsense. If there was an island of 100 men and 100 women. Half of those people will couple off. The other half will most likely sleep with 2-3 men/women. There will probably be a handful of slutty men and probably 1-2 slutty women. There will be 1 loner man and probably 4 loner women.

#59,
You don’t get it Paula. My example was not showing what people would actually do. It was to show Jeannie that things don’t have to AVERAGE OUT as she stated. It was purely a mathematical EXAMPLE and nothing more!!! I don’t care if you swapped men with monkeys and women with giraffes. Get it now?

I have a few gay friends who have told me that it is really, very easy to get casual sex but difficult to find people willing to commit to a relationship in their community. To me, that appears to be another indicator of how men are naturally more inclined towards variety if they can get it.

Just another un-scientific observation from moi –
When I was in grade school I noticed that girls generally tended to be “monogamous” in their same sex friendships. Girls walked to school in pairs with their best friend. Boys tended to roam around in packs. Girl best friends tended to become inseparable, jealousy would ensue if a new girl moved into the neighborhood threatening the girl best friend pairing. Usually when you saw groups of girls, they were actually clusters of girl pairs. I am still friends with my BFF from my childhood. (We met when I was 6) Of course there were exceptions, but that was the general trend I noticed with early childhood same sex friendships.

Nature vs nurture? The most children a woman has ever given birth to is 69. The most children a man has ever sired is over 800. Hmmm…I think nature wins. There’s no way women are equal to or more promiscuous than men. Men are just made to keep seeding to keep the human species from dieing out. Mother Nature makes women much more selective as they have a lot more at risk.

Happy Clients

"I'm getting to know and like men with an entirely new perspective."

I feel more confident and relaxed and I'm not even sure it matters if I meet the one. I have a whole new way to enjoy life and enjoy having men in my life.

Aileen W.

"I have a mature, supportive, satisfying, committed relationship, and I am so happy. "

Regardless of how women want to go about finding the relationship they want and need, you are the one to help them find it... Thank you so much for everything!!

Karin G.

"Thank you Evan for your training. In less than one year, I met my fiancé online!"

I learned so much from Evan’s training and FOCUS Coaching… I was passionate about meeting someone who respected me, honored me, and really loved me…just for me. And, I wanted to feel the same about him. I’m thrilled to say that I found that man.

Rachel E.

"9 months and 14 first dates later, I met the man of my dreams! Love is not a big enough word for how we feel!"

It's only been 106 days, Evan, but they have been the BEST 106 days of my life! Thank you for leading me in the right direction, giving me the confidence to believe in myself and helping me find the love I deserve.

Cheryl O.

“I will never have to settle for a less than fabulous relationship ever again.”

He recently started referring to us as boyfriend and girlfriend and it makes my heart sing. I really feel that we are moving towards the next level in our relationship and I continue to listen to “Why He Disappeared” on a weekly basis to keep myself grounded.